The late warlord, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu‘s son, Emeka Ojukwu Jr. has reiterated that indeed a meeting between his father and President Muhammadu Buhari took place but he said he does not have the details of the meeting.

Earlier in his welcome address, the President, in connection with the secessionist agitations from the South East, said he had met with Ojukwu some time ago and that they had decided to call off the idea of dividing Nigeria.

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and indeed many Nigerians had called that a lie saying he should provide details of the meeting he had with Ojukwu in his Daura home – in reaction, Ojukwu Jr said the meeting, in 2003, actually took place, however, he cannot state what was discussed as he was not with them inside.

He said, in an interview with Punch Newspaper, “I didn’t attend the meeting. I was not privy to what happened. But the indices point to the unassailable fact that the meeting (between Ojukwu and Buhari) held. Why I say so is, remember that Gen. (Olusegun) Obasanjo assumed power as a democratically elected president in 1999. I think the time of the meeting must have been the period leading to Obasanjo’s second term. At that time, there were people who felt he didn’t perform well. So, there was a build-up and upswell of political opinions to see what could be done either to change him or whatever. So, they must have met.

“Not long after that, there was a one-million-man march involving my father, President Buhari and Chuba Okadigbo. When he (Ojukwu) came back, he told me about the one-million-man march but he didn’t tell me about the discussion he had with the President. They were no strangers and you could not have a one-million-man march with someone you have not discussed anything with. In his life, the way he lived, my father always wanted peace for everybody. About the meeting holding, yes, it did. But as for the finer points of the discussion, I cannot tell you this was what was discussed or not discussed because I didn’t attend that meeting. If I had attended that meeting, I could pointedly tell you offhand what was discussed. But I would never be in a position to say that the President is a liar.”

On recent agitations…

“The agitation of IPOB and MASSOB is a valid agitation. The only thing I hold against them is their methodology. But for somebody to fight for self-determination I do not see anything wrong in that. It is like a marriage; there are times the situation will be rosy and pleasant, there are times there will be some upheavals. So, we must give room for those things. No one should say those boys shouldn’t talk. They are allowed to talk. But what I am against or what I frown on is their taking over the road because when it comes to roads, there is what we call “access.” If a Yoruba man wants to go to Port Harcourt (Rivers State) or Aba (Abia State), you should not try to block the road, saying you want to vent your spleen because of some certain grievances. You’re obstructing him and if you succeed in doing that, you’re proving that there is no government and there is insecurity.

“If there is a need to demonstrate or do whatever, then they should go to a stadium, book the venue, go to the police to get a public permit to hold a demonstration and you can all stay in the stadium, have (a protest by) candlelight and get the media to cover the protest – that’s enough of a message to pass across to the world. It is better than recruiting a group of young children from the universities, indoctrinating them and pushing them to get on the roads to do whatever they think they like; acting that way doesn’t help anybody. Their agitation must be devoid of violence. Any agitation must be devoid of hate speech. The reality is that nobody has a monopoly of hate speech. Everybody should be civil in relating with their fellow men. We must eschew hate speech to avoid bad consequences.”

When asked if he thinks his father would be proud of Nnamdi Kanu’s determination in seeking for an independent state of Biafra?…

“Well, he’d be proud. He was not a jealous person – he was always very free. If you remember exactly what he said: ‘I hold the torch, but my problem is that I am looking around for a young man to pass on the torch.’ So, if Nnamdi Kanu shows that he is the person that will bear the torch, I don’t have any problem with that.

But my problem with him is (that) the language being used (by him) is not refined – the language is heating up the polity. I pray that the meeting the South-East senators had with him will ensure that caution is exercised in the language used. I am a party to that. In fact, that (language used) was the dividing line between the two of us – it started when I said ‘don’t insult people’ and all that but he stuck to that. I didn’t want that to happen because I have a name to protect.

“I think Nigerians should love one another and agitate within the confines of the law. I should also add that we know the history of Nigeria; when did we start to feel bad about one another? If we come to the conclusion that things were going on well until 1960 or 1963, then, why can’t we go back to that point and start from there?”